|
Author
|
Message
|
|
Jacob
Richter
|
|
 Posted:
21 Jun 2008 05:22 pm Post subject: Towards a New
Socialism
|
|
http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/
It's an interesting book, especially where it goes
into detail regarding labour credits (the modern equivalent of the old
"labour-time voucher) and modern technology.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
21 Jun 2008 06:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
I wonder why they go out of their way to develop an
argument that the Soviet system deserves to be called socialism, but what
they want is something very different from the soviet system, but also to
be called socialism, a different kind. That was unwise. If they wanted to
dissociate themselves from the soviet system then they shouldn't have
begin by establishing such as association which they must then try to
undo.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 11:04 am Post subject:
|
|
God save us from "professional economists".
From the book
Democracy and planning:
For economic planning we envisage a system in which
teams of professional
economists draw up alternative plans to put before
a planning jury which would
then choose between them. Only the very major
decisions (the level of taxes,
the percentage of national income going towards
investment, health, education,
etc.) would have to be put to direct popular vote
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 11:15 am Post subject:
|
|
Can anyone explain the references in the book for
example page 24 the book quotes Marx and cites: "(Marx, 1974, p.
346)"
What the heck is 1974?
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 11:58 am Post subject:
|
|
Jacob:
Why don't you guys call yourselves
Social-Proletocrats like myself, then?
DAS:
again with the "social" prefix. As
opposed to the non-social proletocrats?
And I'm guessing this word forms a parallel to
"proletariat"
http://www.answers.com/topic/proletariat
and "crat" I assume refers to government.
Dicatorship of the proletariet?
DeLeonists do not see a period of class rule by the
proletariat over the bourgeoisie, that capitalism has developed to the
point to allow for the immediate elimination of class division simply by
the workers operating the means of production and distribution (which
they are already in de facto control of) for the workers. Former
capitalists would then be workers pretty quickly and there would be no
class division. Production, distrbuton as well as governement would be
social.
But for myself as I have explained before I don't
dwell on "calling" myself anything.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 03:15 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Can anyone
explain the references in the book for example page 24 the book quotes
Marx and cites: "(Marx, 1974, p. 346)"
|
That's a newer format for footnotes. Publishers of
journals are trying to get rid of the format that we were taught in high
school, which was footnote (superscript) 1 in the text , bottom of the
same page: 1 - Joe Blow, editor; Collection of Karl Marx's Love Letters,
New York: Acme Publishing Co., 1974, p. 346. Now they want to have (Marx,
1974, p. 346) inserted into the text, and the rest of the information can
be found in the bibliography.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 03:22 pm Post subject:
|
|
The name Proletocrats obscures the fact that we
advocate the abolition of the proletariat.
"The condition for the emancipation of the
working class is the abolition of every class."
- Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy
"When the proletariat wins victory, it by no
means becomes the absolute side of society, for it wins victory only by
abolishing itself and its opposite."
- Marx, The Holy Family
"Philosophy can only be realized by the
abolition of the proletariat, and the proletariat can only be abolished
by the realization of philosophy"
- Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's
Philosophy of Right
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 03:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
Interesting remark on page 30.
"Equal pay is a moral statement. It says that
one person is worth as much as any other. It says, 'Citizens, you are all
equal in the eyes of society; you may do different things but you are no
longer divided into upper and lower classes.'"
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 04:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
On Page 159, quotes from Aristotle (?) to the effect
that democracy is like a monarchy in which the people in aggregate are
the monarch.
I think that's an important thing to consider in
relation to the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was
a bad name, a very misleading name, given to something that will probably
be genuinely necessary: that period of about three days to a week in
duration, during which some lackeys of the deposed capitalists are likely
to be rioting and assaulting others, and they will have to be arrested
and jailed.
Of course, "dictatorship of the
proletariat" wasn't Marx's choice of a name. It was August Blanqui's
idea and choice for a name. Marx just made the mistake of repeating it so
that he could speculate about what it would require in order for it to be
a reality, but without using quotation marks. This created the impression
in readers that it was Marx's choice of words. It is the identical thing
that happened when Marx repeated Louis Blanc's phrase, "from each
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", quoting
it, again, so that he could speculate about what it would require in
order for it to be a reality, and omitting the quotation marks, creating
the impression among readers that it was Marx's idea and choice of words.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 04:50 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
again with the
"social" prefix. As opposed to the non-social proletocrats?
And I'm guessing this word forms a parallel to "proletariat"
http://www.answers.com/topic/proletariat
and "crat" I assume refers to government.
Dictatorship of the proletariat?
|
Plain "Proletocracy,"
Language, and the Working Class
|
Quote:
|
|
Take, for
example, the “double-duth” notion of a “dictatorship
of the proletariat.” Said Hugo Chavez, “We know that one of Karl Marx's proposals was
precisely that of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but that is not
viable [...]” In spite of
the blatantly reformist context of this quote (since Chavez is an
outright reformist), the Venezuelan president had an unintentional
point. Marx, for all his colossal efforts to unite political socialism
with the workers’ labour movement of his time, scrambled to rebut Blanqui’s conception of “dictatorship” (by a
highly organized elite of secretive conspirators) with the
“dictatorship of the proletariat” – and counterposed it
with the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” – without properly understanding the Roman application
of that very old word.
Shortly after the foundation of the Roman Republic, it was realized
that, in spite of the establishment of the two-consul system, there
were times whereupon unaccountable power had to be concentrated in the
hands of a single person. This realization led to the creation of the
Roman dictatorship, which usually functioned rei gerendae causa (“for the matter to be
done”), usually revolving around the preservation of the
republican order, even against elements that desired “dictatorship” in the modern sense. Moreover, this dictatorship was limited to six months,
and those who held this office resigned upon fulfilling the purpose of
the dictatorship. All was well until Sulla and especially Julius Caesar
came along, whereupon the Roman dictatorship was transformed to become
synonymous with the modern understanding of the word: tyranny.
Notwithstanding the individualistic connotations of that word in this
classical sense, in Marx’s formulation of the pre-socialist
“dictatorship of the proletariat,” it can be said that
such “dictatorship” has the feature of impermanence. However, the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” does not
have this temporary feature.
Nowadays, Marxists of various tendencies promote the notions of “workers’
rule” and “proletarian
democracy” in order to avoid the negative connotations of
Marx’s “double-duth” concept, especially with the
passing of the revisionist “Marxist-Leninist” regimes and the
grossly revisionist legacy left behind by the founders of
“Marxism-Leninism: “Comrade” Stalin
and his gang. However, how
can that be translated into an ideology like classical "social
democracy" but without class ambiguities?
|
Social Proletocracy, Marx, and
Lenin's theoretical mistakes
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 06:51 pm Post subject:
|
|
Jacob apparently quoting himself from another forum
wrote:
Nowadays, Marxists of various tendencies promote
the notions of “workers’
rule” and “proletarian democracy” in order to avoid the
negative connotations of Marx’s “double-duth” concept...
I have no idea what you're referring to Jacob.
Instead of quoting yourself from some article that
you authored perhaps it would be easier if you came right out and
explained what you meant.
But you state without reference that Marxists of
various tendencies promote notions of "proletarian democracy",
as if all "Marxist tendencies" should because perhaps some do.
(regarding "workers' rule" for myself I would prefer to see the
word government or democracy replace "rule" even though
technically it is ok.)
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
22 Jun 2008 10:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
^^^ That whole section that I quoted was a critique on
the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Nowadays, most say
"workers' rule" and "proletarian democracy."
Plain "proletocracy" ideology-izes both
classical "Social Democracy" and the concept of the
"dictatorship of the proletariat" / "workers' rule."
Social proletocracy, on the other hand,
ideology-izes the combination of the above with the abolition of wage
slavery and capital (labour credits).
I think you need to revisit the history of
classical "Social Democracy." :(
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 12:20 am Post subject:
|
|
Jacob:
Nowadays, most say "workers' rule" and
"proletarian democracy."
DAS:
That sounds like the reverse of (but utilizing the
same logic) of Yogi Berra's: Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.
You give no indication of who "most are"
or how you came by this reported knowledge.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 12:25 am Post subject:
|
|
Jacob to DAS:
I think you need to revisit the history of
classical "Social Democracy."
DAS:
Interesting style Jacob. Someone questions what you
yourself have written and instead of answering you come up with the
school boy "I think you need to revisit _________. "
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 02:18 am Post subject:
|
|
Jacob, we clearly have a communication breakdown so
that, even if we agree on some things, we wouldn't even know it.
Please confirm: when you say "plain
proletocracy" you mean the history of socialist ideas, with the exception
that a system of labour credits is not explicitly included. When you say
"social proletocracy" you mean socialist ideas including a
system of labour credits.
ideology-izes ... to mean "I'm basing my
ideology on this concept" ...?
double-duth ? all that Google finds for that term
is that it's the name of a song on an album performed by Frankie Smith.
"without class ambiguities" -- I guess
you mean defining classes without having ambiguity. But that's not part
of a discussion of what kind of new system we want, or even the temporary
transition. That's part of a discussion of what kind of system we live
under now.
classical Social Democracy -- I'm guessing that's
equivalent to what De Leonists would call: supporters of gradual reform
who claimed to be the real socialists, such as Eduard Bernstein
revisionism: same thing?
"revisionist 'Marxist-Leninist' regimes"
?? meaning: the regimes that claimed to be Marxist even though they were
undemocratic? Most De Leonists call them "statism" or
"state despotism", and a few call them "state
capitalism".
Hopefully we can start talking the same language
soon.
Like I said, many De Leonists are actually proud
that they will never read anything written after De Leon died in 1914,
and I was once almost that bad -- almost.
So be gentle when you stick it in!
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 04:11 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Please
confirm: when you say "plain proletocracy" you mean the
history of socialist ideas, with the exception that a system of labour
credits is not explicitly included.
|
Yes - it can range from worker-controlled
"state-capitalist monopoly" to more direct worker-controlled
social capitalism to social proletocracy itself.
|
Quote:
|
|
When you say
"social proletocracy" you mean socialist ideas including a
system of labour credits.
|
Correct.
|
Quote:
|
|
ideology-izes
... to mean "I'm basing my ideology on this concept" ...?
|
Correct. Classical Social Democracy was both an
ideology and a description of post-revolutionary society.
|
Quote:
|
|
double-duth ?
all that Google finds for that term is that it's the name of a song on
an album performed by Frankie Smith.
|
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/b/e.htm
----Bebel had trained as a cabinet maker, and in
1863, at the time of the founding of Lassalle’s German Workers’ Association,
he found "socialism and
communism" "totally unfamiliar concepts, double-duth words".----
|
Quote:
|
|
"without
class ambiguities" -- I guess you mean defining classes without
having ambiguity. But that's not part of a discussion of what kind of
new system we want, or even the temporary transition. That's part of a
discussion of what kind of system we live under now.
|
The problem with "democracy" is: who
exactly constitutes "the people"? You've got bourgeois
democracy, proletarian democracy, petit-bourgeois democracy, etc.
|
Quote:
|
|
classical
Social Democracy -- I'm guessing that's equivalent to what De Leonists
would call: supporters of gradual reform who claimed to be the real
socialists, such as Eduard Bernstein
|
Either you or your comrade quoted from the site:
----The term "Social-Democracy" has been
used by Marxists since the time of the First International of Karl Marx
and Frederick Engels. The term is both an organizational appellation,
meaning it describes a particular political affiliation within a
political culture and an adjective describing a "kind" of
politics within the broader socialist movement. Simply put, a
social-democrat was for democratic socialism. That is, the extension of
political democracy to the economic level, the elimination of capitalism
and the institution of a broad based workers democracy.
Chronologically "Social-Democracy"
described both the adherents of the First and Second Internationals
through 1914-1919. Everyone in the various socialist movements who were
at all affiliated with these internationals were described as being
"social-democrats", whether they represented the staid
reformism of US socialist Morris Hilquit to the revolutionary Marxism of
V.I. Lenin. They were all "social-democrats."----
|
Quote:
|
|
"revisionist
'Marxist-Leninist' regimes" ?? meaning: the regimes that claimed
to be Marxist even though they were undemocratic? Most De Leonists call
them "statism" or "state despotism", and a few call
them "state capitalism".
|
The real founder of "Marxism-Leninism"
was NOT Lenin:
"Marxism-Leninism":
anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist
|
Quote:
|
|
Hopefully we
can start talking the same language soon.
Like I said, many De Leonists are actually proud that they will never
read anything written after De Leon died in 1914, and I was once almost
that bad -- almost.
So be gentle when you stick it in!
|
Even though you guys are not overly fond of Lenin
(who, by the way, was ideologically close to Kautsky before the latter
turned his back on Marxism and became a renegade), may I suggest you read
at least his earlier works?
The Tasks of the Russian
Social-Democrats
Our Immediate Task
An Urgent Question
All three works were written before 1900.
“Social Democracy is
not confined to simple service to the working-class movement: it
represents ‘the combination of socialism and the working-class
movement’ (to use Karl Kautsky’s definition
which repeats the basic ideas of the Communist Manifesto); the task of
Social Democracy is to bring definite socialist ideals to the spontaneous
working-class movement, to connect this movement with socialist
convictions that should attain the level of contemporary science, to
connect it with the regular political struggle for democracy as a means
of achieving socialism—in a word, to fuse this spontaneous
movement into one indestructible whole with the activity of the
revolutionary party.” (Vladimir
Lenin)
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 07:21 am Post subject:
|
|
Thanks for the answers and also the links. I think I
see that the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was the name of the
Marxist organization in Russia around 1899. So if someone who is familiar
with Russian events at that time says "social democrat" they
mean what I call Marxist. (?)
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 11:09 am Post subject:
|
|
Jacob cogently quoted in a revleft post:
“The socialist
project has to be translated into a language that people understand. This
is not the language, cultivated by Western intellectuals,
of postmodernist radicalism and multiculturalism. It is the simple, blunt
language of classical Marxism.” (Boris Kagarlitsky)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/printthread.php?t=77979
yet "double duth", "social
proletocracy", "plain proletocracy" etc.
seem like a possible case of lexicographic
ideosyncratitis.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 03:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Thanks for the
answers and also the links. I think I see that the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party was the name of the Marxist organization
in Russia around 1899. So if someone who is familiar with Russian
events at that time says "social democrat" they mean what I
call Marxist. (?)
|
Luckily or unluckily, the non-Marxist socialist
groups in Russia refused to fold into the RSDLP. On the extreme end of
the spectrum, Belgian Social Democracy included outright liberals, as
noted by Comrade Rakunin on RevLeft ("Plain
Proletocracy" article).
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 05:32 pm Post subject:
|
|
So double-duth is a very rare and unfamilar word that
means: "a very rare and unfamiliar word" -- There's a certain
humor in that.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 06:50 pm Post subject:
|
|
[If you're trying to take
cheap shots at my neologisms, LOL]
Seriously, I interpret the term
"double-duth" to mean "confusing." Unfortunately,
this applies to the "communist" and "socialist"
labels, as per my "Great Betrayals" article / chapter section of
my work-in-progress.
|
Quote:
|
|
To make things
worse, the various “Communist” parties of today are quite liberalized, and are anything
but.
Meanwhile, outside the Soviet Union, Trotskyist revisionism, usually
organized around the “Socialist” label, degenerated into modern
circle-ism (or, in the Shachtmanite experience, neo-conservatism), while both so-called “social
democracy” and so-called “democratic socialism”
degenerated into welfare republicanism, thereby losing the original but
class-ambiguous idea of extending political democracy to economic
affairs. To top things
off for the “Socialist” label, government
bailouts for corporations are now seen as “socialism for the
rich” and capitalism for the rest of us!
What is to be done, then, for these two terms which have become, in the
words of August Bebel, “totally unfamiliar concepts, double-duth words”? To paraphrase
one Grigory Zinoviev at the Second Congress of the Communist
International:
The question of the name is not formal, but a highly political
question of great importance. The differences between the revolutionary
Marxists and the various ”Communists,”
“Revolutionary Communists,” “Marxist-Leninists,”
“Socialists,” “Socialist Workers,” etc. that have
betrayed the banner of the working class in their own particular manner
must be made clear to every single worker!
|
Incidentally enough, here's another Lenin work you
may wish to read:
WHAT SHOULD BE THE NAME OF OUR
PARTY—ONE
THAT WILL BE CORRECT SCIENTIFICALLY AND HELP TO CLARIFY THE MIND OF THE PROLETARIAT
POLITICALLY?
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 11:15 pm Post subject:
|
|
So what are you in about the third grade? That's one
of the things we we used to do then, try to make up words. Oh how
tantalizing!
A dollar prize for the word that was delibeately
made up to see if they could get it in the dictionary.
We have another contributor to this list who has a
web site where he claims credit for but one "coinage".
As you say, lots of luck with your double duthed
mission to save working class America from the present damnable dearth of
words preventing it from undertstanding the true nature of the class
struggle.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
23 Jun 2008 11:33 pm Post subject:
|
|
Jacob:
Incidentally enough, here's another Lenin work you
may wish to read:
And Jacob then proves a hypertext link entitled:
"WHAT SHOULD BE THE NAME OF OUR PARTY—ONE THAT WILL BE CORRECT
SCIENTIFICALLY AND HELP TO CLARIFY THE MIND OF THE PROLETARIAT
POLITICALLY?"
Dave writes:
BUT instead of Lenin we get directed to a post by
Jacob on Revleft containing just a bit a bit of Lenin regurgitated by
Jacob that has nothing to do with the supposed importance of what name
should be chosen.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 01:23 am Post subject:
|
|
Lenin link fixed - sorry, Dave. :(
At the very least, reading it will enable you to
appreciate where I'm coming from, why I wrote "Great
Betrayals," and why I created the neologism "social
proletocracy."
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 09:12 am Post subject:
|
|
To reiterate: I believe the designation
"proletocracy" is technically incorrect. It indicates
government by the proletariat. But socialism means the discontinuation of
classes, including the proletariat. Socialism will have only human
beings, not a proletariat.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 09:21 am Post subject:
|
|
in _The Tasks_, chapter 12, Lenin wrote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Our Party
looks farther ahead: socialism must inevitably evolve gradually into
communism, upon the banner of which is inscribed the motto, “From each according
to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
|
My interpretation of _critique of the gotha pgm_ is
that Marx didn't look ahead to "From each ... to each", but
instead presented the argument that it's something that future
generations might find themselves considerering, but pre-revolutionary
generations shouldn't adopt it as an expressed goal. My interpretation is
that he quoted it in order to reject it.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 09:34 am Post subject:
|
|
In deciding on the name of our organization, I think
it's a strange job because I regard all of idealization terms as genuine
only if they are all the same system. If it's genuine socialism only then
it will be a genuine democracy and a genuine republic, provide genuine
justice and genuine individual freedom and genuine equality. So all of
terms that are already in use by others, democratic party, republican
party, libertarian party, etc., rightfully belong to the socialist
movement, and they are fraudulent if anyone else uses them. So what do we
name our movement? Since all the words mean the same thing anyway, it can
be just about anything that's not already taken by someone else.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 10:02 am Post subject:
|
|
On the alleged "double duth"
The marxist archive has the following in its bio
blurb for August Bebel:
Bebel had trained as a cabinet maker, and in 1863,
at the time of the founding of Lassalle’s German Workers’ Association,
he found "socialism and
communism" "totally unfamiliar concepts, double-duth
words".
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/b/e.htm
(Of course no author of the blunb is identified nor
does the blurb reveal the source of the alleged quotation.)
but a search of the entire August Bebel (1840-1913)
archive yields not a single hit for the alleged “double duth”.
However, whoever wrote the bio may have meant “double dutch”.
See:
http://home-l2.tiscali.nl/~sparhawk/taal.htm
According to that website “double dutch” is apparently an
English usage for “speaking inscrutable gibberish”
Another website http://www.wikihow.com/Learn-Double-Dutch
has double dutch as similar to what American
English speakers refer to as pig latin, a type of code speak.
(Especially in light of the Engels discussion of
the two terms in the preface to the 1888 English translation of the
Communist Manifesto:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1888 )
Whether Bebel was confused or not in 1863 at the
ripe age of 23 over the terms communism and socialism seems pretty
pointless.
The author of the Marxists bio blurb on Bebel
apparently needed an editor.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 03:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
^^^ I'll point this out to the editor once my WIP is
complete. :)
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 04:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
To reiterate:
I believe the designation "proletocracy" is technically
incorrect. It indicates government by the proletariat. But socialism
means the discontinuation of classes, including the proletariat.
Socialism will have only human beings, not a proletariat.
|
Mike, you should consider the words plutocracy and
corporatocracy, as well. There is no such thing as "pure
democracy"; only class-based "democracy." By class-based,
I mean political, economic, and social aspects. We currently live under a
plutocracy or corporatocracy.
Most radical "socialists" desire some
form of proletocracy (in substance if not in words) - the political,
economic, and social rule of the working class.
Your definition of "socialism" is
somewhat confusing. As Marx said, classless society can only be achieved
under so-called "communism." Before then, there is definitely a
relationship between individuals and their labour, as expressed by labour
credit.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 06:33 pm Post subject:
|
|
The poorest form for supporting an idea:
"Most people agree with me."
Jacob wrote:
Most radical "socialists" aspire to some
form of proletocracy - the political, economic, and social rule of the
working class.
DAS:
You given this type of argument before Jacob and I
asked you what your source was and you just blew it off. If your point in
participation here is to pursuade you're not going to do it like that.
When your work in progress is completed you'll
notify Marxists.org of the error? Boy you must be realy busy on the work.
Too busy to back up your claims as to what "most" people
believe.
As if even if most radical socialsts aspired to
"class" rule by the workers that ought to settle it. Whatever
most believe currently aspire to no one can legitimately aspire to
anything else?
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 07:59 pm Post subject:
|
|
Thank you for the reply. Lots of initial posts of mine
on Internet boards need edits for clarification. :oops:
[Of course only few people have heard the term
"proletocracy" before.]
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 09:44 pm Post subject:
|
|
Jacob:
Most radical "socialists" aspire to some
form of proletocracy.
Jacob:
only few people have heard the term
"proletocracy" before
DAS:
I have heard it now and Mike of this list has heard
it now. Put that down as two AGAINST your notion of working CLASS
democracy. Consistent with Marx we are for the elimination of the basis
of CLASS. Speaking for myself I am not going to agree with it for the
sake of hopefully promoting general acceptance of what you perceive to be
a really neato neologism.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
24 Jun 2008 09:48 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Jacob Richter wrote:
|
|
As Marx said,
classless society can only be achieved under so-called
"communism." Before then, there is definitely a relationship
between individuals and their labour, as expressed by labour credit.
|
What Marx actually said was, with income based on
labor time, this situation, admittedly, will have some of what he
considered to be "defects", where he gave the examples:
"one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than
another, and so on." Therefore we have a kind of paradox that being
treated exactly equally makes us materially unequal. This, Marx asserted,
is a "defect."
This defect, Marx said, is also
"unavoidable" until the day comes when "the springs of
co-operative wealth flow more abundantly." It seems pretty clear to
me that the last phrase -- "the springs of co-operative wealth flow
more abundantly" -- means that it is the invention of new automation
that we would be waiting for.
But that is not _class_. To say that you get to
spend more on beer instead of diapers if you didn't have any kids doesn't
put us into separate classes. We don't have separate relationships to
the means of production. We are not owner versus servant. We are both
partners in co-ownership and co-management. We are not turned into
exploiter and exploited. It doesn't make us instruction-giver and
instruction-obeyer. All it means is, if I want kids, I have to work an
additional number of minutes.
I argue that it's not a "defect" at all.
Both of us are performing for ourselves. I wanted more kids and now, due
to my choice, I will be buying more diapers and less beer, for the same
hour of work. What defect? We now have equal opportunities. I think Marx
was "giving in" too much to the utopian socialists even to call
that a "defect". Even so, Marx certainly never implied that it
was a form of having classes.
DeLeonism is different from other schools of
Marxian thought in believing that classes are the first thing that goes.
The workers take and hold the means of production and now all class
distinctions are abolished. Not everything is perfect. Not everything is
going smoothly yet. Imperfection isn't the same as having a division into
classes.
De Leonists don't use a distinction between
"socialism" and "communism". Suppose it was five
minutes ago the workers first seized the means of production, the new
situation that we now have is called socialism or communism.
Some people may believe there are still some
"defects" in the fact that people have to earn their income by
the hour. I think that's just their personal value judgement. As far as
I'm concerned it's not a defect. I'd have no complaint if that situation
continued forever. It _is_ the equality of opportunity that I became a
sociaist in the first place to advocate.
*Worst* case, having hourly incomes might make it
necessary to adopt a public policy about giving away defined quantities of
work credits for free to people who are retired or handicapped or have
other recognized situations. But the need to adopt a policy to handle a
situation isn't the same as having classes.
It's also not a defect if efficient operation
requires it, just as the need for industry to have an administrative
office isn't a defect. Overhead, yes; defect, no. I find several kinds of
naivete in Marxism. One of the pervasive kinds of naivete in Marxism is
to say that work will become fun in the classless society of the future,
that it will be someone's hobby, the source of someone's joy and
fulfillment, to pull the cranks of the steel mill and throw the switches
of the assembly line. I think it's all 19th century gibberish. People
won't work for nothing. If we pay them, they will show up. If we don't
pay them, they won't show up. The maxim of the scientific method --
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - places
the entire burden of proof on those who believe that industrial work can
be unpaid, and that goods can be distributed for free, "from each
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." I don't
adopt goals where I have concluded that the amount of evidence for their
viability is zero.
It's my interpretation that Marx quoted that
"From each..." slogan in the context of saying that it's NOT an
appropriate slogan for the socialist movement. Some readers say
differently. Marx wasn't the clearest writer all of the time, but since
he cited that slogan only in a private letter that he never asked to be
published, it was his prerogative to be a vague as he wished.
The entire discussion of labor time certificates is
likewise part of that letter that Marx never asked to be published. I
don't endorse it because of a claim that it's fundamental to Marx's
philosophy. I endorse it because I believe it's necessary to make a
socialist economic system function.
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
25 Jun 2008 09:58 pm Post subject:
|
|
John I know a lot of people found him to be really
funny. For me he was funny but no more funny and probably a bit less than
people I used to smoke pot with. (But I always had a real good time
smoking pot.)
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
26 Jun 2008 01:32 am Post subject:
|
|
"Have you ever noticed that fluorscent lights
seem afraid to come on?" -- George Carlin, in the book _Napalm and
Silly Putty_
|
|
|
The Greenman
|
|
Posted:
26 Jun 2008 11:53 am Post subject:
|
|
George did make sense with some of his comedy routine
but I notice that he would go off into tangents. He believed rich white
people and Liberals are the reasons for societies problems.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
26 Jun 2008 05:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
I don't even know that was what he belived. It sold
albums and filled up performance halls though.
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
02 Aug 2008 04:56 am Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Jacob Richter wrote:
|
|
As Marx
said, classless society can only be achieved under so-called
"communism." Before then, there is definitely a
relationship between individuals and their labour, as expressed by
labour credit.
|
What Marx actually said was, with income based on
labor time, this situation, admittedly, will have some of what he
considered to be "defects", where he gave the examples:
"one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than
another, and so on." Therefore we have a kind of paradox that
being treated exactly equally makes us materially unequal. This, Marx
asserted, is a "defect."
This defect, Marx said, is also
"unavoidable" until the day comes when "the springs of
co-operative wealth flow more abundantly." It seems pretty clear
to me that the last phrase -- "the springs of co-operative wealth
flow more abundantly" -- means that it is the invention of new
automation that we would be waiting for.
But that is not _class_. To say that you get to
spend more on beer instead of diapers if you didn't have any kids doesn't
put us into separate classes. We don't have separate relationships
to the means of production. We are not owner versus servant. We are
both partners in co-ownership and co-management. We are not turned into
exploiter and exploited. It doesn't make us instruction-giver and
instruction-obeyer. All it means is, if I want kids, I have to work an
additional number of minutes.
[...]
DeLeonism is different from other schools of
Marxian thought in believing that classes are the first thing that
goes. The workers take and hold the means of production and now all
class distinctions are abolished. Not everything is perfect. Not
everything is going smoothly yet. Imperfection isn't the same as having
a division into classes.
|
That's where our misunderstanding is, then. Just
like the anarchist difference with the Marxists over the very definition
of "state" (they use Weber's incoherent definition)...
Anyways, here's my work (sans the Preface):
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=180
[Unlike RevLeft, you don't have to log in.
Hopefully it isn't blocked, either.]
The full chapter in question is this one:
CHAPTER 5: SOCIAL PROLETOCRACY:
THE REVOLUTIONARY MERGER OF MARXISM AND THE WORKERS' MOVEMENT
Also note that, very recently, I coined a long form
for "Social Proletocracy": Social-Abolitionism and
Proletarian Democracy.
The recognition here is that the
social-abolitionist goals (abolish private capital property and
undemocratic control - but more importantly abolish capital formation,
wage slavery, and ultimately classes) can only be accomplished through
the vehicle of proletarian democracy (which by itself already abolishes
private capital property and undemocratic control on a social scale :) ).
In a proper "social proletocracy," you
would be correct (using strictly Marx's words). However, I have also
defined "proletarian" in my own way:
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=56&st=0&#entry698469
|
Quote:
|
|
The modern
worker, or proletarian: exists within the wage-labour system,
contributes to the development of society’s labour power and
its capabilities, and has no significant-influence ownership or factual
control over the means of production.
|
Just as the term "petit-bourgeoisie" has
been redefined in Chapter 2 of my work, and just as the
"bourgeoisie" have evolved as a class over time, so has
"proletarian." Under social-abolitionism, while there would be
no wage slavery, no individual proletarian would have significant-influence
ownership or factual control over the means of production.
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
02 Aug 2008 08:40 am Post subject:
|
|
It being 4:30 in the morning, I'll save the reading
for another day.
What was Weber's definition, and in what writing
did he write it?
I thought the Marxists and the anarchists agreed on
the definiiton of the state; and what they disagreed on was the sequence
of steps for getting rid of it.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
02 Aug 2008 11:12 am Post subject:
|
|
Jacaob if you have no inclination to distill your
thoughts from the writing that you have posted elsewhere I have no
inclination to go to the other location to read your article there.
Sometimes I get the idea that your only pupose here
is to get people to go to the other locations and particiapte in the
discussion there.
No thanks.
Your "coinages" add something to the
discussion?
Please.
On the one hand you seem to understand the concept
of DeLeonism that classes go upfront with no dicking around with those
who would pretend to revolutionary expertise - but yet your neo-jisms
suggest the opposite.
Even your own term by your own definition is a
contradiction:
++++++++++++++++++++
JR:
I have also defined "proletarian" in my
own way:
The modern worker, or proletarian: exists within
the wage-labour system, contributes to the development of society’s labour power and its capabilities,
and has no significant-influence ownership or factual control over the
means of production.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You then propose:
Proletarian democracy
or the almost totally inane
"Social Proletocracy"
both of which give the definite impression that
there can somehow be democracy by the workers while they are in the
status of proletarians ("within the wage-labour system").
Let me ask you Jacob, at any other site that you
post to, have you ever gotten responses similar to what Mike and I have
given you - that your term supposes a workers' democracy while the
workers are under the proletarian relationship to the means of production?
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
02 Aug 2008 06:56 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
Jacob if you
have no inclination to distill your thoughts from the writing that you
have posted elsewhere I have no inclination to go to the other location
to read your article there.
Sometimes I get the idea that your only purpose here is to get people to
go to the other locations and participate in the discussion there.
|
Huh?
You can always use the "quote" function
here and quote from there to respond here. :(
|
Quote:
|
|
You then
propose:
Proletarian democracy
or the almost totally inane
"Social Proletocracy"
both of which give the definite impression that there can somehow be
democracy by the workers while they are in the status of proletarians
("within the wage-labour system").
Let me ask you Jacob, at any other site that you post to, have you ever
gotten responses similar to what Mike and I have given you - that your
term supposes a workers' democracy while the workers are under the
proletarian relationship to the means of production?
|
Bourgeois and Proletarian
Democracy
(a chapter in Lenin's The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade
Kautsky, which denounced Mister Kautsky's betrayal of Marxism)
Not at all, actually. :( The concerns raised so far
revolve around the seemingly repetitive "social" prefix. In
regards to your specific concern, I have suggested an alternative term: social
ergatocracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergatocracy
If you think this term is better one, that's fine
by me. My only problem with this term is that it isn't a recognizably
Marxist term ("dictatorship of the proletariat," "workers'
rule," "workers' democracy," etc.), and is therefore
subject to potential abuse by those advocating for MERELY a society-scale
version of "workplace democracy" without private property
(i.e., ordinary proletocracy).
I again reiterate: while the modern proletarian
exists within the wage labour system, the social-proletocracy-era
proletarian does not. Just as "functioning capitalists" can be
bourgeois (CEOs) and otherwise (Soviet bureaucrats), and just as the term
"petit-bourgeois" once included cops, artisans, and managers
before my redefinition...
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
02 Aug 2008 10:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
JR:
while the modern proletarian exists within the wage
labour system, the social-proletocracy-era proletarian does not
das:
then the definition of proletarian that you so
obviously gave so much thought to doesn't fit does it?
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
02 Aug 2008 10:51 pm Post subject:
|
|
das to JR:
You're citing Lenin to justify using
"proletariat" with democracy?
JR as an example of "proletarian"
supposedly referring to the status of workers post class rule:
"'Bourgeois and Proletarian Democracy', a
chapter in Lenin's 'The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade
Kautsky'"
das writes:
Throughout the chapter that you cite where the hell
is the concept of workers collectively operating and controlling the
means of production for the workers as they themselves determine?
"In Russia, however, the bureaucratic
machine has been completely smashed,
razed to the ground; the old judges have
all been sent packing, the bourgeois
parliament has been dispersed—and far
more accessible representation has been
given to the workers and peasants; their
Soviets have replaced the bureaucrats,
or their Soviets have been put in control
of the bureaucrats, and their Soviets have
been authorised to elect the judges. This
fact alone is enough for all the oppressed
classes to recognise that Soviet power, i.e.,
the present form of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, is a million times more democratic
than the most democratic bourgeois republic."
das continues:
"This fact alone", My Aunt Tillie!
"the bureaucratic
machine has been completely smashed,
razed to the ground" ???
Or try to fathom Mr. Lenin's contradictory
statements:
"socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly
which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that
extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly”
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
“It follows that
under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois right, but
even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!…
"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm
The workers will be so comforted to know that you
and Lenin are on the same page with this.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
02 Aug 2008 11:35 pm Post subject:
|
|
das wrote:
Jacob if you have no inclination to distill your
thoughts from the writing that you have posted elsewhere I have no
inclination to go to the other location to read your article there.
Sometimes I get the idea that your only purpose
here is to get people to go to the other locations and participate in the
discussion there.
JR replied:
Huh?
You can always use the "quote" function
here and quote from there to respond here.
das:
Is that function broken on your own computer?
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
03 Aug 2008 09:13 am Post subject:
|
|
Wikipedia says that Bakunin wrote: "They [the
Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of
course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this
is: No dictatorship can have any other
aim but that of self-perpetuation."
We're at a disadvantage because Bakunin actually
knew Marx. The two men spent time sitting in the same room and calling
each other jackasses. For all I know, maybe Marx did say some things in
conversation that led Bakunin rightfully to think that Marx's idea would
led to a self-perpetuating dictatorship. But I have been deeply
indoctrinated by SLP literature, were we were taught that "The
existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery"
(Marx); "The government of persons is replaced by the administration
of things...." (Engels) If the SLP's impression is right, Marx and
Bakunin both wanted to get rid of the state. But Marx realized that the
only way to get rid of it is to take control of it first, enforce a few
basic policies, namely, socialism, and then dismantle that state. (God
know how Bakunin thought the state could be gotten rid of -- chant curses
to a voodoo doll?)
But now I reject most of the debate anyway. I think
the idea of getting rid of the state is a circular argument: the
government is called a state because a ruling class controls it, so when
we get rid of classes the government will no longer be called a state.
Duh. That's about as profound as saying let's stop calling the glass a
"full glass" when it becomes empty.
As for the coercive aspect of the state, I say the
same thing that I said about "undiminished proceeds." With
"undiminished proceeds", society should deduct just as much as
it needs to deduct, but no more that that. With the coervice state,
society should have just as much coercion as it needs to have, but no
more than that."
"Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
03 Aug 2008 05:16 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
davesearles wrote:
|
|
JR replied:
Huh?
You can always use the "quote" function here and quote from
there to respond here.
das:
Is that function broken on your own computer?
|
If I have to update my Chapters, I don't want to
update all over the place. I RELUCTANTLY posted Chapter 5 on that Kasama
board yesterday, even if that Chapter was completed quite a while ago.
If I repost it here, it means that, if I change
even one word in my doc, the equivalent posts on RevLeft, Kasama, and
this board will have to be edited.
|
Quote:
|
|
Or try to
fathom Mr. Lenin's contradictory statements:
"socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to
serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased
to be capitalist monopoly”
|
Again, please read my critique of Lenin (OMG - a
revolutionary Marxist critiquing another) in the Kasama thread, because
that very quote is used.
Let me sum up my position here:
|
Quote:
|
|
Therefore,
social proletocracy, as opposed to ordinary proletocracy (again, be it
direct or indirect through state mechanisms), encompasses the
following:
1) The establishment of ever-increasing amounts of what many radical
political liberals call “participatory democracy,” which goes beyond
the current and degenerating “representative democracy” in regards to a highly engaged and highly active
citizenry;
2) The revolutionary (as opposed to reformist) extension of this “participatory
democracy” to socioeconomic affairs (that is, the implementation
of neither state-capitalist ownership nor state-capitalist control, but rather the implementation of social
ownership and social control);
3) The revolutionary working-class emphasis of the two features above
(that is, at the expense of other classes, such as the bourgeoisie);
and
4) In addition to these features of a more direct but still ordinary
proletocracy, the “pre-communist” social abolition of both wage slavery and
capital through the full credit of individual labour (albeit after
income deductions or non-income, “Lassallean” taxation “for the common funds” pertaining to strategic socio-technological
development, infrastructure, retirees and the disabled, etc.).
|
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
04 Aug 2008 03:34 am Post subject:
|
|
jr:
If I have to update my Chapters, I don't want to
update all over the place. I RELUCTANTLY posted Chapter 5 on that Kasama
board yesterday, even if that Chapter was completed quite a while ago.
If I repost it here, it means that, if I change
even one word in my doc, the equivalent posts on RevLeft, Kasama, and
this board will have to be edited.
das:
It would never occur to you to simply summarize
your thoughts, and if being able to identify version status is impoertant
to you, to simply date the summary?
Moreover by your same logic you wouldn't be able to
comment here on what you wrote elsewhere because that might change the
context of the original writing? Much like judical courts make it a
practice to not comment upon their previous decisions except in
subsequent judical decisions so as to not, even unintentionally disturb
the original decsion.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
04 Aug 2008 03:39 am Post subject:
|
|
jr:
social proletocracy ecompasses....
das:
exclusively a null set
|
|
|
mikelepore
|
|
Posted:
04 Aug 2008 08:15 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Jacob Richter wrote:
|
|
just as the
term "petit-bourgeois" once included cops, artisans, and
managers before my redefinition...
|
Many artisans, I think that's right. Cops and
managers, I think that's wrong. Petit bourgeois means, and has always
meant, only one thing -- business owners whose assets are so small that
they must work in their own businesses, unlike the big capitalist who
have the option of telling employees to do doing all of the work. A
special case of that is when the business owner has no employees, and
then the owner is the worker, and that persons income is neither profits
nor wages but in a third category.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
04 Aug 2008 09:11 am Post subject:
|
|
jr:
just as the term "petit-bourgeois" once
included cops, artisans, and managers before my redefinition...
ds:
"cops, artisans, and managers"???
perhaps you could possibly bless us with a
citiation to some source that might be recognized as something other than
unsupported opinion of the pre jr meaning of the word (other than your
own unsupported opinion or someone else's)?
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
04 Aug 2008 03:49 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
mikelepore wrote:
|
|
Jacob Richter wrote:
|
|
just as the
term "petit-bourgeois" once included cops, artisans, and
managers before my redefinition...
|
Many artisans, I think that's right. Cops and
managers, I think that's wrong. Petit bourgeois means, and has always
meant, only one thing -- business owners whose assets are so small that
the must work in their own businesses, unlike the big capitalist who
have the option of telling employees to do doing all of the work. A
special case of that is when the business owner has no employees, and
then the owner is the worker, and that persons income is neither
profits nor wages but in a third category.
|
That was what I was referring to in my work, with
regards to "artisans." They usually have no employees.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
04 Aug 2008 10:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
Is there ever a reference to the real world with you
Jacob?
Instead of trying to make yourself sound authoritative
all the time, whether you know something or not - before you hit the
submit button scan what you write and practice asking yourself -
"How do I know this? "What referernce can I give so it won't
sound like I'm pulling the fact out of thin air or from my very limited
experience with the world." Maybe put in a "it seems to
me" or a "I think" every once in a while.
Also years from now if you haven't gone over to the
otherside by then you are going to blush over your insistance at claiming
the invention of new words:
Proletocracy!! Was there something wrong with
"proletarian democracy"? (not that I agree with the term) And
where's the invention? To try to cut up words and jamb them togther? Oh
be still my heart. "Jacter" What grade in school do kids do that
with their names?
Also the above claim sounds so Al Gore, that you
came up with a new definition for, of all terms petty bourgeios. In your
limited world you actually think that until Jacob Richter came along that
you have come up with a fundamental clarification of that historic term?
Did you also invent the internet?
|
|
|
Jacob Richter
|
|
Posted:
05 Aug 2008 12:14 am Post subject:
|
|
^^^ "How do I know
this?"
Because my work has sources - LOTS (you've got a
PM, BTW).
|
Quote:
|
|
Proletocracy!!
Was there something wrong with "proletarian democracy"? (not
that I agree with the term) And where's the invention? To try to cut up
words and jamb them togther? Oh be still my heart. "Jacter"
What grade in school do kids do that with their names?
|
Same reason why "Communist
International," "Political Bureau," "State
Planning" (Gosudarstvennyi planovyi),
"participatory economics," etc. were jammed together:
Comintern, Politburo, Gosplan, parecon, etc.
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
05 Aug 2008 11:55 am Post subject:
|
|
When words are jammed together as you demonstrate it
doesn't make new words with new meanings does it?
Your work has sources?
Then perhaps you might be familar enough with those
sources to refer to them when you make claims such as the historical term
petty bourgeois was generally recognized to have had a certain definition
until you came along and redefined it.
"just as the term "petit-bourgeois"
once included cops, artisans, and managers before my
redefinition..." (jr)
|
|
|
davesearles
|
|
Posted:
07 Aug 2008 11:33 pm Post subject:
|
|
It
just took me almost a week to write a short legal document that I could have
written in the matter of an afternoon if I didn't care how long it was or
to how many outside documents I referred to.
At some point in our secondary educations we
usually get assigned to write a "term paper" to be at least a
certain length and contain a certain number of checkable references.
The assignmemt seemed off to me. First I should
have something to say. That should have been the first part of the
assignment, have something to say. I could never figure it out so I never
turned one in.
|
|
|